<anoeticAFK> dot circle sphere hypersphere
<Ken_D> read flatland lately?
<Venusian> Yes, anoetic. But they are all (except perhaps hypersphere) imperfect constructs in the physical world. Only can be perfect as concepts.
<anoeticAFK> speaking of flatland. i have a theory
<Ken_D> Go for it.
<Venusian> Tell us about the flatland theories...
<anoeticAFK> If a 2d realm has no existence because its third-dimensional width is 0 which enters as a factor into its volume.. then a supposed 2d realm must actually have a very thin but imperectible 3d thickness... which i think was covered in flatland.. but i think..
<Venusian> Aha. There you go. Ref my comment about the pencil line on paper not being 2 dimensional. That's it. It is 3 dimensional, as is any circle in the physical world.
<anoeticAFK> that it's not justified to assume that a 3d object can have 0 width in a fourth dimension and still have intrinsic volume, 'idempotentially'
<anoeticAFK> and furthermore...
<Venusian> Oh dear, now you are using ice's word. ;-)
<anoeticAFK> assuming therefore that our existence actually has a slight imperceptible 4-d thickness, that 4-d existence must also have a slight imperceptible 5-d thickness to justify its OWN existence..
<anoeticAFK> and so on...
<anoeticAFK> so what we must have is actually a universe of infinite dimensions
<Venusian> there would be some physicists who would go for that, although many limit it to 10 dimensions
<anoeticAFK> yeah, 10 or 26..
<Ken_D> hmm...do you folks believe in string theory?
<anoeticAFK> but the (psuedo-?)logic i'm using here should shoot right through those (relatively) arbitrary limits.
<Venusian> Yes, I see what you are saying there. Relates to a concept similar to a half-life. You never can get to 0.
<anoeticAFK> hmm.
<Venusian> (Although the physical half-life of an element and the *concept* using fractions are two different things in practice.)
<Ken_D> I don't know..perhaps we should call it flateyes....or better yet....flatbrain...
<Venusian> Fatbrain (the www site and bookstore)
<Ken_D> conceptual vs. reality
<Ken_D> lol
<Venusian> Yes, just like in so many other things. Political theories/realities (anarchy, communism, democracy...), physics, geometry... the circle, the perfect point, etc.
* anoeticAFK ponders, as opposed to the imperfect point? ;p
<Ken_D> lol
<Venusian> Perfect concepts in an imperfect physical world.
<anoeticAFK> the universe = the imperfect point
<Ken_D> Now we are back to the minority issue...lol
<Ken_D> hey why do I have to be an imperfect point....lol
<Venusian> If you look on a large enough scale, yes! And on a small scale, a universe within a point (down to the atomic level).
<anoeticAFK> space for the universe to expand into and time in which to do it are co-dependent aspects of perception applying only from the limited point of view of one within the universe itself .. from a perspective outside the universe it is eternally (timelessly) the same point/singularity that it was at the first moment..
<Venusian> Hey, anoetic... was last night your first time on this channel?
<anoeticAFK> but for us to exist within that point and observe a run-down building .... that point must be in some sense imperfect
<anoeticAFK> yep
<Venusian> Good "point," anoetic. :-D